In this EditionLegal Reform: First Amendment
Protects Barking, But Not Commercial Speech?
Tort D'Jour: Bingo with a Twist
Testimony: Doctors Flee Pernnsylvania

Legal Reform: First
Amendment Protects Barking, But Not Commercial Speech?

An Ohio state appeals court has dismissed
a case against a man who barked at a police dog that barked at
him first. The city had charged the man with dog "taunting."
The court backed a municipal judge's opinion that the barking
was covered under the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on case that
may determine if businessmen discussing their business practices
have the same constitutional rights as those who bark.

The case, Nike Inc. v. Kasky,
will determine if the Nike Corporation and other businesses have
free speech rights when they respond to activists' criticism
-- or, for that matter, praise -- of their business practices.

Activist Marc Kasky had sued Nike, saying
that statements Nike made in press releases, letters to newspapers
and advertisements on the subject of Third World working conditions
were inaccurate. California's Supreme Court ruled that because
Nike sells products manufactured in the Third World, its speech
was commercial, not political, and not protected under the First
Amendment.

The result of the ruling was that Kasky's
criticism of Nike was protected, while Nike's response in its
own defense was not.

Kenneth Paulson, senior vice president
of the freedom Forum and executive director of the First Amendment
Center, says: "While there's not a lot of public sympathy
for an international corporation accused of exploiting workers,
the California Supreme Court's decision reeks of unfairness.
The court concluded that Nike was engaged in more limited commercial
speech because the purpose of the ads was to sell products. The
irony here is that Nike couldn't possibly hope that its letters
to the editor or full-page ads would have the effect of selling
more shoes. Their real goal was to counter the negative publicity
that could lead to selling fewer shoes."

Dissenting in the case, California Supreme
Court Justice Ming Chin defended First Amendment protections
for commercial speech: "Handicapping one side in this important
worldwide debate is both ill-considered and unconstitutional.
Full speech protection for one side and strict liability for
the other will hardly promote vigorous and meaningful debate."

Media companies including the New
York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, the American
Booksellers Association Foundation and the Magazine Publishers
of America urged the Supreme Court to review the California case,
while Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Monsanto and Pfizer
have warned in an amicus brief "the effect of these California
statutes on First Amendment freedoms is both immediate and grave,
threatening all corporate speakers with civil and criminal liabilities
for engaging in protected speech."

Corporate CEOs may not always be popular,
but, as Deroy Murdock, a Scripps Howard columnist and member
of the black leadership network Project 21 has observed, the
First Amendment should protect CEOs as vigilantly as it does
neo-Nazis on the march.

The Catholic Church has faced its share
of lawsuits in recent years, but this one had a twist. A 70-year-old
woman sued a Wisconsin parish after a scoreboard fell on her
head during a bingo game at the church. She told the court the
bonk on her head had changed her sexual preference from heterosexual
to homosexual. The court, however, dismissed the case, noting
that the plaintiff refused to take psychological tests to verify
her claims and that it took her three years to file the lawsuit.

Source: James Percelay in
Whiplash! America's
Most Frivolous Lawsuits

Testimony

"Fifteen members of our medical
staff have chosen to retire earlier than planned or have chosen
to practice elsewhere for reasons directly related to the cost
of their [malpractice] insurance... Data obtained from
the Pennsylvania Medical Society indicates that more than 500
physicians have chosen to leave Pennsylvania for reasons directly
related to this crisis. In addition approximately 100 have chosen
to retire early. This does not include those who have altered
their scope of practice and chosen to practice gynecology only
and no longer deliver babies or those choosing to practice, for
example, non-operative orthopedics. These circumstances create
a significant access to care problem for our patients."